Forum: F-16 Procedures

These numbers are for best climb speed measured in feet/second not for the most fuel efficient climb / flight profile and also not for the best total energy gain profile (potential energy = altitude and kinetic energy = speed changes).
Nevertherless interesting and thanks for digging them up.

If that's true someone needs to tell our Stan/Eval shop because we use the MIL flight profile for emergency divert (slowing to max range once at altitude of course).

Destro--

I know you aren't trying to be smart-a** about this nor is anyone else. I am a RW pilot and understand that the you can use an FMS or pencil and paper to calulate climb speeds for best fuel burn in any airplane. I presume that those in charge of paying for the gas in training missions and those trying to task combat aircraft at least try to be as economical as possible. I would appreciate it if one of the drivers or someone with actual experience chimed in here.

Raptorman's numbers for the sim are just that, a simulation. If he runs out of gas, he punches the ESC button and starts over.

_________________
Doc Z

If that's true someone needs to tell our Stan/Eval shop because we use the MIL flight profile for emergency divert (slowing to max range once at altitude of course).

The maximum energy-rate profile is constructed by connecting the
points of tangency between the PS contours and the lines of constant ES.
For the sample fighter at low altitudes this profile, labelled the "subsonic
path," differs little from that generated by the PS peaks. Only slightly faster
speeds result, yielding a climb profile of nearly constant Mach between
.92 M at sea level and 1.0 M at the climb ceiling of 51,000 ft. Above about
25,000 ft, however, this chart exhibits the characteristic double peaks of
the supersonic fighter. As the climb progresses to about 30,000 ft along the
subsonic climb path (ES = 44,000 ft), equal or greater climb rates are
available in the supersonic regime at the same energy level. Above this
level the faster "supersonic path" becomes the optimum energy-rate profile.
This situation becomes quite apparent at higher levels. If, for example,
the climb is continued along the subsonic path until it intersects the
ES = 60 KFT (i.e., 60,000 ft) line, climb rate will have dropped to about 50
ft/sec. At the same energy level along the supersonic path the corresponding
climb rate still exceeds 200 ft/sec.
Optimum climb techniques for this fighter are best demonstrated
through an example. Assume the aircraft is at point A (10 KFT, .6 M) and a
climb is to be made to point F (45 KFT, 1.75 M). Theoretically the optimum
climb profile would begin with a diving acceleration at constant energy
(i.e., parallel to the lines of constant Es) to intersect the subsonic path at
point B (1 KFT, .92 M). The climb would then be continued along the
subsonic path until the aircraft reached point C (about 30 KFT), at which
time another diving acceleration would be performed to reach the supersonic
path at point D (21 KFT, 1.17 M). The supersonic path would be
followed to point E (38 KFT, 1.88 M), which represents the final desired
energy state (ES = 90 KFT), and finally a constant-energy zoom climb
would be used to reach the goal at point F.

You may have a hard time, but I'd try to open your mind to it, STBY knows of what he speaks.

This is an odd question. What is the most efficient throttle setting to power ratio for an F-16? Is time no object? Then I'm guessing the "most fuel efficient" climb rate is 0.000001 feet per minute...

That of course is horseshit

The climb airspeeds shown were selected to maintain maximum fuel efficiency while still providing near maximum rate of climb.

CLIMB

The recommended MIL climb schedule to obtain optimum performance for a clean aircraft is 450 knots to 0.88 mach; then maintain 0.88 mach.

MAX AB CLIMB

Figure A3-5, sheets 1 and 2, presents MAX AB climb data. The climb airspeed schedule given on sheet 1 will result in minimum time-to-climb to altitude at subsonic speeds. The climb airspeed schedule is in KTAS.